Seeing this thread reminded me of one I posted over 6 years ago on the ‘old’ forum - Link here: Naim Forum Archive
I still run fibre to my hifi, but these days I use a SFP modules in the main and hifi switch rather than the media converters I used to have.
Sill like the sound, and my urge to tinker has diminished.
Dave.
I tried with two tp-link converters a year ago in my secondary (non-naim)ystem. it was no success.
but some weeks ago I picked up a s/h Sonore Signature Rendu (basically a renduOptical with powersupplies in one box). I use the (relatively) cheap little hipster Denafrips Ares 2 mulibit DAC and the Linn Kazoo UPnP-server in this system. cables and converter as recommended by Sonore.
this time the sound is very relaxed, detailed and analog. the amp used is EAR 912 + Linn Klimax Twin. the only item changed was the Sonore, very promising.
Amazing isn’t it, the Sonore opticalRendu (or signature as it may be)? It’s even better fed with an optical module, though the inexpensive 10Gtek FMC Sonore sells with it is better than the TP-Links imo.
Ear 912? A new acquisition? How do you find it?
This one could be a interesting alternative to both EtherRegen and Sonore Optical Module:
Thing is, the Sonore/Uptone gear is all about power regulation and clocks. If you don’t have good clean power then you’re just adding a solution looking for a problem, imo. It’s a shame that the oM is only 1000 and couldn’t work for you. I have a feeling this was a lower power/noise design decision they probably wish they hadn’t made after all - but similar thinking along the lines of why a 2020 $20k Naim streamer would be only 10/100. Jesus from Sonore hinted at a 10/100/1000 revision awhile back but no idea if/when that might happen.
That most likely will simply have been them getting used to the new sound!
Meanwhile, where there is a difference there is always the question of which one is closer to the sound as recorded, bearing in mind it is possible to prefer the less accurate one (which can be through familiarity or simply because some artefact is pleasing)… Unfortunately in most cases there is unlikely to be any easy way to determine that, though of course in the end what matters in most situations is that the listener likes what the hear, regardless if how true to the original, so arguably it is may not be important.
I would not be surprised if Sonore > fiber > Cisco > ethernet cable > Nd 555 is sounding better vs Cisco alone.
The fiber bridge would remove the noise.
But don’t know if the Prat would be the same.
Something to try.
Dark Bear tried fiber between Cisco and ER, but preferred ethernet cable connecting.
However he is alone I think to have tried that.
FR, interested in your statement. What noise are you referring to and what is being removed please? And what is the source of that noise?
I am curious whether it’s a language thing, and whether you are referring to serial line coding clock stability… but if so that will depend on the quality of the down stream media converter design.
That’s no big deal, really 
Tinkering the network was just for fun of it. And I’ll probably try something else.
My system sounds marvellous as it is 
Yesterday evening I had one of those “taste of heaven” moments:
If I really wanted to improve the system, I mean really improve it, I had to go for a Statement or, even better, change the listening room 
Even though my current listening room has a nice frequency response, a 50 square meters treated room, with perfect length, width and height, would make a massive difference.
Interesting. I’ve never been much of a classical music listener, but since I’ve gotten the opticalRendu I’ve been enjoying it more and more. More than any other genre, I think the clarity and realism has to be there, and where a truly high end system comes into play.
Listening room? Ha, ha… ah yeah, the living room… I should probably just move the better system down to the office as that’s where I do most of my listening (though wall/post mounted, near field Ls50’s sound pretty awesome)… wife’s working from home until January, kids at home too. Late nights and early mornings. We did redo it a few years back with new solid oak floors and new subfloor, and Rockwall sound insulation in the ceiling and interior walls we could and a 13 foot leather sofa along the listening side. Sounds really lively but solid.
I actually had the LPS 1.2 for the opticalModule fail yesterday. Need to contact Uptone today. Second one from them, so not too keen on these power supplies actually. We’ll see what we can work out.
I was referring to my past tp link fiber bridge. The goal was to remove the noise, it was explained at least like that. When I installed it, the sound was much nicer, softer, open and detailed, effects we usually have when the noise is lower.
But the sound was less engaging vs my next Cisco and Audioquest diamond combo.
However Sonore should perform better vs the cheap tp link.
What I read many times is that fiber optic can’t carry noise. But I let you being more precise and technical in the explanation.
@frenchrooster Your description of the sound through the TP-LINK fiber bridge is exactly what I experienced when I tried it with my Muso-2. I was surprised that I could hear such a difference even on a Muso. I now have the Muso on wifi and I find that it has the benefits of the fiber bridge without being too “polite”.
I guess you might be referring to common mode high frequency currents that flow in all conductors (Hence the term common mode) like mains leads, interconnects and Ethernet leads… yes those voltages can’t conduct through fibre through to ground.
The source of such high frequency voltages is often where I would look to mitigate such high frequency currents, and well designed earthed equipment is generally less likely cause such common mode voltages. Double insulted or non earthed components can be more prone.
Commercial equipment may be made to different standards to domestic equipment.
So you tried fibre and got rid of it in favour of the electrically noisier wifi?
What type of SFPs and fibre cables did you use?
Maybe it wasn’t fibre per se that was the problem - it may have been the particular media converters and cables and how these interacted with your system and tastes.
Hi Jim, wifi isn’t necessarily more electrically noisier… it has many advantages over Ethernet, in terms of power and using frequencies that are far more benign to audio compared to Ethernet. One of the reasons 802.3az was developed to reduce wasted noise power in Ethernet loads so Ethernet on compatible devices can be more efficient like modern wifi.
However with wifi the frame flow is typically less consistent than with Ethernet and so the client may need to work harder causing more processing noise.
But as always it swings and roundabouts so will vary from implementation to implementation.
But sure if you have a direct fibre connection, I expect that to be very low power, but I don’t have the numbers…
Yes, the noise brought via fibre vs wifi in any case will depend on the implementation.
Recently I’ve been routing Tidal files via wifi from my router to the MConnect app on my iPad.
MConnect sends the Tidal files via wifi back to the router and on by BJC 6a cables to my ER and the 272.
Surprisingly this does sound a bit better than when the files go directly from the router to the ER and 272.
An example of where wifi is not bad for SQ.
@JimDog All I can say is that I prefer the sound of the wifi over the TP-Link ( MC200CM) x2 setup. Fiber between the two was SC to SC Fiber Patch Cable Multimode Duplex - 1m (3.28ft) - 62.5/125um OM1. I did use the cheap wall wart power supplies that came with the TP-Links. I also prefer the wifi over a Cisco 2960 WS-C2960G-8TC-L. Now my ethernet connection to the media center where the Muso is located does run from my router which in a different part of my home through a pair of Motorola Moca adapters. See here. Between the Moca adapters is 75 ohm coax cable. This provides very fast speeds, 200 Mbs, to the media center but maybe it’s also adding a lot of noise and this is why I am leaning towards the SQ of the wifi connection. WHo knows for sure?
Hello Simon,
All over the NET I see outcoms like this.
What happens, to make it more scientific, when you add a lot of jitter in the signal?
Does it recover the signal or …
IMHO The TCP/UDP protocol doesn’t recover anything and doesn’t ceep a record of anything in the signal. Because it is pointless for stream to do.
The more over for the reason that the music services has to double there bandwith and and server capacity.
Just watch TV with a stream from the NET. Sometimes it blocks, stops etc. There is no recovery of any form oherwise these things would not be visible.
Enjoy listening
Theopa
